Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal for Nature Conservation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.de/jnc

Emerging multilevel environmental governance – A case of public

participation in Poland
Joanna Cent a,b,∗ , Małgorzata Grodzińska-Jurczak a , Agata Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska a
a
Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland
b
Institute of Sociology, Jagiellonian University, Grodzka 52, 31-044 Kraków, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In recent decades, nature conservation policies have increasingly considered the participation of various
Received 27 March 2013 actors. However, the effectiveness of such efforts is often questionable, and better methods of engag-
Received in revised form ing stakeholders are still being sought. In this paper, we present an analysis of a consultation program
17 September 2013
conducted in the final stage of site selection for Natura 2000 in Małopolska, a region located in south-
Accepted 17 September 2013
ern Poland. Based on a desk study and qualitative research, we analysed the modes and degrees of
participation, the normative foundations of the consultation program, and the goals and expectations
Keywords:
that characterise participants. The results are discussed using Unnestall’s and Arnstein’s typologies of
Central and Eastern Europe
Multilevel governance
participation, which show the limited success of the participatory process in representing all relevant
Natura 2000 stakeholders and enabling their actual influence on final decisions. The importance of implementing
Poland the EU directives for emerging multilevel governance in the nature conservation sector in Central and
Public participation Eastern Europe, including Poland, is highlighted. In the context of Poland, the consultation program ana-
lysed appeared to be a novel and innovative step forward towards the development of a meaningful
participatory approach in this region of Europe.
© 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction as equally important, in practice, some of them have privileged pos-

The increasingly frequent conflicts at the interface between
man and nature and the resulting need to prevent or manage
them have forced significant changes in the governance of natu-
ral resources (Dietz et al. 2003; Manfredo & Dayer 2004; Paavola
2009). These changes primarily consist of taking an anthropocen-
tric perspective while developing and implementing conservation
policies (Rauschmayer et al. 2009). Relatively simple top-down
approaches are replaced by complex decision making based on
the multilevel governance (MLG) concept. MLG refers to both the
delegation of power to lower administration levels and the involve-
ment of various actors in shaping environmental policy (O’Riordan
& Stoll-Kleemann 2002; Paavola et al. 2009). MLG often refers to the
concept of stakeholders as potential interest groups that need to
be considered in decision-making processes (Primmer & Kyllönen
2006). In the case of natural resource governance, such groups are
usually categorised based on their rights (e.g., land owners), land
use practices (e.g., farmers), roles in the policy process (e.g., sci-
entists) or interests in its outcomes (e.g., investors, environmental
groups). Although public programs often present all stakeholders
∗ Corresponding author at: Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian Uni-
versity, Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Kraków, Poland. Tel.: +48 126645204.
E-mail address: joanna.cent@uj.edu.pl (J. Cent).
itions that secure greater consideration of their interests by means
of law, informal practices or personal connections (A’gh 2001;
Apostolopoulou & Pantis 2011). Consequently, nature conserva-
tion includes both formal administrative activities and informal
mechanisms and institutions (Jordan 2008).
The development of MLG of nature conservation in the EU-15 –
the Member States of the European Union (EU) prior to the acces-
sion of new countries in 2004 – was closely related to the framing
of EU environmental directives dating back to the 1970s and 80s.
The process was dependent on the national political context and
the historical development of participatory approaches in public
policy (Rauschmayer et al. 2009; Wurzel 2008). The designation
of the Natura 2000 (N2000) European Ecological Network, based
on the Birds and Habitats Directives (2009/147/WE, 92/43/EEC),
was one of the main governance challenges in nature conser-
vation. Although the N2000 directives do not explicitly require
involving communities in implementation processes (Unnerstall
2006), it is highly recommended to organise public participation
based on other EU directives (2003/4/EC, 2003/35/EC) and the
Aarhus Convention (Wesselink et al. 2011). In the majority of the
EU-15 countries, the implementation of N2000 was criticised for
being a top-down approach that insufficiently engaged stakehol-
ders (Wurzel 2008), leading to conflicts (Paavola 2004; Young et al.
2005), legitimacy crises (Engelen et al. 2008) and active opposition
against the program (Hiedanpää 2002). In many cases, the initial

1617-1381/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2013.09.005
94 J. Cent et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102
top-down implementation failed to designate N2000 sites. The EU
Commission took several countries (e.g., Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Netherlands) to the European Court of Justice,
citing delays and failures in the development of the N2000 net-
work (Paavola 2004). As a result, participatory approaches were
used to handle the legitimacy issues and finally designate the
sites (Bogaert & Leroy 2008; Cliquet et al. 2010; Pinton 2008; van
der Windt 2008). The eventual inclusion of public participation in
the N2000 designation processes varied widely among the EU-15
countries but was hardly ever applied from the beginning of the
process and still remains a challenge (Alphandéry & Fortier 2001;
Apostolopoulou & Pantis 2011; Beunen & de Vries 2011; Keulartz
2009; McCauley 2008; O’Riordan et al. 2002). The introduction of
participatory approaches is often discussed in the framework of
governance shift from top-down to multilevel (Engelen et al. 2008),
while at the same time, it is criticised for leaving a gap between the
rhetoric of participation and everyday practice (Rauschmayer et al.
2009).
In Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), the development of public
participation and MLG with respect to nature is often considered
as more demanding because the heritage of the communist system
is characterised as being highly centralised, having rather inef-
fective public institutions for environmental conservation (Bruszt
2008; Kluvánková-Oravská et al. 2009; Scrieciu & Stringer 2008)
and, a lack of tradition for the participation of public and non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) (Bell et al. 2011; Tickle & Clark
2000). Institutional incompatibility with environmental problems
is manifested by increasingly frequent conflicts at the inter-
face between nature conservation and infrastructure and because
economic development has been additionally stimulated by EU
financial support since the accession (Grodzińska-Jurczak & Cent
2011a; Sikor 2003; Young et al. 2007). Europeanisation has con-
tributed to the development of participatory approaches in CEE
environmental policies (Börzel & Buzogány 2010a; Sasse et al.
2006). However, similar to the EU-15, institutional changes require
not only the proper transposition of the EU regulations but also
the broader institutionalisation of public participation (Tews 2009;
Wagenet & Pfeffer 2007), which – according to recent studies –
is still lacking (Banas 2010; Rodela & Udovč 2008; Suškevičs and
Külvik, 2011; Svajda 2008; Szabo et al. 2008).
A framework for analysing public participation in N2000
implementation
So far, several approaches have been proposed for studying
and evaluating public participation processes (Reed 2008). We
have based this study on two frameworks developed by Unnerstall
(2006) and Arnstein (1969). The first one focuses specifically on
public participation in the establishment and management of
N2000 sites in select EU counties. The second one is a classical,
broadly used tool for analysing the power relations between actors
and the implicit purposes of using participation in policy processes
(Evans 2012; Maier 2001; May 2006; van der Windt 2008). The
Unnerstall framework identifies three modes of participation: 1)
the informal administrative approach, where the public admin-
istration in charge of the process discusses various options with
stakeholders – in this case, stakeholders’ insight is somewhat con-
sidered in selecting sites for N2000 and defining their borders;
2) the formal administrative approach, where a draft of decisions,
for example, a preliminary map of sites, is presented to stakehol-
ders in order to collect comments; and, 3) the political approach,
where decisions considering N2000 sites are made collectively by a
committee of all relevant stakeholders. Arnstein’s ladder of partici-
pation categorises activities that engage stakeholders based on the
extent of participants’ influence. Three categories are proposed:
1) “non-participation”, which includes activities that are only an
illusion of participation and are oriented at changing participants’
attitudes by manipulation, therapeutic approaches and informa-
tion; 2) “tokenism”, where power is monopolised by the organisers,
although some level of advice from stakeholders affects decisions
through consultations in order to placate stakeholders; and 3) “citi-
zen power”, which involves the distribution of power among actors
and ultimately results in citizen control over a program. To apply
the ladder concept, the identification of the organisers’ and partic-
ipants’ objectives and expectations toward the program was found
useful (Reed 2008).
The two classifications highlight different aspects of participa-
tion, and their parallel application leads to conclusions of different
scopes. Arnstein’s ladder of participation classifies practices as
being “more” or “less” participatory based on the degree of par-
ticipants’ influence on final decisions. These characteristics are
generally applicable to any participatory activity. Unnerstall’s clas-
sification considers different institutionalisations of participation,
which do not necessarily determine degrees of participation; in this
framework, all modes of participation have limitations and can be
executed very differently, depending on certain political and social
contexts (Unnerstall 2008). The three modes were developed based
on case studies in N2000 implementation and management, there-
fore, they can be applied to analyse the nuances of participation for
the specific context of the EU Directives.
Even if no conclusive scientific evidence is available (Haruţa &
Radu 2010; Newig & Fritsch 2009), there is some evidence that
stakeholders’ involvement can, to some extent, improve the effec-
tiveness of nature conservation (Grodzińska-Jurczak & Cent 2011b;
Irvin & Stansbury 2004). The success of public participation can
be evaluated based on either the characteristics of a process (e.g.,
degree of participation achieved) or the quality of decisions and
their consequences (Reed 2008; Young et al. 2013). In both cases,
the evaluation criteria are contextual and case-dependent, and
their assessment can vary among the actors who participate (or
refuse to participate) in the process (May 2006). What is explicitly
described as success is dependent on who defines the evaluation
criteria. The use of selected approaches allows us to reconstruct
existing definitions of success and discuss them in their particular
policy contexts.
The role of N2000 in developing MLG of nature in Poland
In the case of Poland, the transposition of the EU Birds and
Habitats Directives into national law and the designation of
N2000 sites became one of the most influential changes in nature
conservation over the past two decades. In practice, the imple-
mentation of N2000 caused much anxiety, often taking the form
of strong opposition from stakeholders, especially local author-
ities (Grodzińska-Jurczak et al. 2012; Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska et al.
2012). Stakeholders feared that the introduction of new protected
areas would lead to restrictions on the development of munic-
ipalities by imposing extensive agricultural methods, limiting
the right to freely use their land, or limiting production and
infrastructure development (Grodzińska-Jurczak & Cent 2011a).
When introducing N2000, the public administration responsi-
ble for nature conservation was obliged to collect the opinions
of local authorities on the site boundaries (2004–2009); how-
ever, no specific requirements for these consultations were stated
(Dz.U.2004.92.880; Dz.U.2008.201.1237).
This paper presents an analysis of N2000 implementation in
Małopolska, a southern region of Poland, with a special focus
on a consultation program conducted in the final stage of the
site selection process. It was the first N2000 public participa-
tion program that was systematically organised and completed
across the country whose results are relevant for the on-going
development of management plans. While analysing the case of
 J. Cent et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102 95

Fig. 1. The area of study. The map shows three districts selected for analysis: (1) Powiat Miechowski; (2) Powiat Limanowski; and, (3) Powiat Nowotarski and the N2000
areas designated within them. The districts differ in number and total area of the N2000 sites, with Powiat Miechowski having the largest number of small sites and Powiat
Nowotarki having a small number of large sites. At the time of the study, there was escalated conflict between the local community of Powiat Nowotarski and RDEP regarding
N2000 site selection, considering the development of touristic infrastructure (such as ski lifts) and peat and timber production. The other districts were less prone to conflict.
Some conflicting issues were reported in Powiat Miechowski regarding flood prevention and gravel collection.

Małopolska program, we particularly focused on the modes and
degrees of participation, normative foundations, goals and partici-
pants’ expectations. The analysis provides answers to the following
research questions:
• Which modes of participation have been developed for Natura
2000 designation in Małopolska?
• Which goals, expectations and normative foundations charac-
terised actors’ engagement in the public participation processes
used in Małopolska?
• To what degree has participation been achieved in the Małopolska
consultation program?
The results are used to discuss the success of the participatory
process, the benefits of using such an approach, and the importance
of implementing EU directives for emerging MLG in the nature
conservation sector in CEE and Poland.
Methods
The analysis presented is based on a desk study and qualitative
research. The desk study included reviewing documents (reports
from consultation meetings, legal acts, regulations, and govern-
mental and NGO web pages) and available references on incor-
porating public participation approaches while designating and
implementing the N2000 program in Poland (environmental NGOs
assessments, policy recommendations, and scientific literature in
Polish) published between 2004 and 2011 (Appendix 1). The empir-
ical study consisted of in-depth interviews and participant observa-
tion and was focused on a consultation program in the Małopolska
region. The interviews were conducted in three districts (Powiat)
of Małopolska, Miechowski, Limanowski and Nowotarski, which var-
ied in terms of the number of sites and area included in N2000 and
the occurrence of relevant social conflicts (Fig. 1). These districts
were selected after preliminary expert interviews and participatory
observations conducted during six consultation meetings in 2008.
Interview respondents were selected from individuals who actively
participated in the meetings in the districts.
Twenty-six interviews were conducted in 2008 and 2009 with
representatives from local authorities (two municipality heads,
nine council chairmen), local administration (11 municipal offices’
staff) who joined consultation meetings, experts designating the
N2000 sites (3), and the moderator of the meetings (1). Other
stakeholders, such as residents, landowners or NGOs, were not
interviewed because they were the minority participants and
did not participate in all the meetings. Each interview lasted
approximately 1–2 h. The interviews followed an interview guide
(Appendix 2) and were recorded, transcribed (350 pages total) and
coded using software for qualitative data analysis. The categories
from the analytical framework were used to code and organise the
data. The results of this analysis were compared to information
derived from the desk study. In the results section, all subjective
opinions and information about the emotions of actors are the
respondents’ views on the consultation process. All the facts (e.g.,
explicit statements of the aims of the consultation meetings, infor-
mation on how the process was organised, who participated, and
the order of events) are based on the desk study, which was used
to describe the process in order to avoid unnecessary question-
ing of respondents about facts that are sufficiently described in the
available documents and/or literature. In cases when the available
information was unclear or not reliable, respondents were asked
for clarification.
Results
Modes of participation in N2000 designation and implementation
processes in Małopolska
According to available documents, consultation on the N2000
sites selected between 2004 and 2007 in Małopolska followed the
96 J. Cent et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102
same scheme as in the rest of the country. Centrally organised
selection of sites, conducted by experts on a purely scientific basis,
was accompanied by consultations in the form of written requests
addressed to local authorities and representatives of a few relevant
sectors. The provided documents included general maps of areas,
which were often very inaccurate, e.g., the borders of a particu-
lar municipality or private parcels included in N2000 were hard
to recognise according to respondents, and contained very limited
information about the principles of the N2000 program. Councils
were asked to give an official opinion on the borders of N2000 sites
in their municipality within 30 working days. In many cases, local-
level respondents stated that it was the first time that they had ever
heard of N2000. The opinions on the proposed sites, as expressed
in analysed documents, were generally highly critical, indicating
already existing and potential future conflicts with local develop-
ment and insufficient information about the program. According to
the documents and the experts interviewed, the initial list of sites
prepared in 2004 significantly differed from the one submitted by
the Polish Ministry of the Environment to the European Commis-
sion, which included only about a half of the initially recommended
sites. Such significant differences resulted in protests by environ-
mental NGOs followed by the publication of a so-called “Shadow
List” of areas sent to the EU. However, there are no official docu-
ments that explicitly state the reasons for the changes or the impact,
if any, of local authorities’ opinions on the list of sites. No ministe-
rial feedback was provided to the local authorities on whether any
alterations were made.
In 2008, the regional authorities in Małopolska – who were,
according to the experts interviewed, aware of the potential con-
flicts reported already by local authorities – initiated a pilot public
consultation program “N2000 – meetings in the regions” addressed
to the municipalities included in N2000. The program coincided
with organisational changes in administration, which resulted in
the delegation of responsibilities for the designation, consulta-
tion and management of N2000 to the newly established Regional
Directorates of Environmental Protection (RDEP). The program
comprised 23 meetings (16 in 2008 and 7 in 2009), organised
once or twice at each N2000 site (or group of sites in the case
of small neighbouring areas), depending on the number of prob-
lematic issues. Local coordinators, who were selected during the
first meetings, represented municipalities’ interests and cooper-
ated with experts on a regular basis. The program’s promising
output was presented to the central level administration. Although
similar consultation meetings were conducted in other parts of
the country, in most regions, these consultations were not held as
systematically as in Małopolska.
Unlike the centrally organised consultations in the early stages
of N2000 designation, RDEP’s program (announced publicly and
described in reports) consisted of face-to-face meetings with local
authorities and stakeholders. The meetings were open so all who
were interested could join them. Available reports and partici-
pant observations showed that most of the consultations were
attended by representatives of RDEP, experts designating the sites
(mainly scientists and environmental NGOs), the moderator, repre-
sentatives of local authorities, administrators of sub-regional and
municipal levels, and a few local residents. In rare cases, the meet-
ings attracted local and regional media or representatives of the
private sector who were engaged in activities that were potentially
harmful to the local environment. Invitations to the consulta-
tion meetings that were distributed among local authorities did
not clearly specify the invitees, and according to the moderator,
the local administration often did not distribute that information
among all potential participants.
Based on the available data, it is difficult to evaluate whether and
how experiences from the Małopolska program were used to design
the consultation processes for management plans that are currently
(2009–2013) being developed for N2000 sites. According to the
respondents (experts and moderator), the program was presented
to the General Directorate of Environmental Protection in Poland;
however, no available documents refer to its role in developing
consultation schemes for the management of N2000 sites. Occa-
sionally, management plans are prepared within EU projects (e.g.,
LIFE+), which are very often conducted by environmental NGOs. In
the case of such projects, consultations are not required but so far
have always been planned and undertaken.
Goals, participants’ expectations and normative foundations of
the Małopolska consultation process
The explicit goal of the Małopolska meetings, as stated in reports
from the consultation program, was to inform and dispel doubts
about the implementation of N2000 and to consult the proposals
of new sites with local communities in order to facilitate the imple-
mentation of the new conservation program. Accordingly, RDEP
employees and experts familiarised invitees with the general rules
of N2000 and the procedures for its designation. In the opinions
of the participants, answering their questions and correcting false
beliefs were the greatest advantages of the meetings (“The consul-
tations showed that things were not as we thought they were. That
Natura is to protect (. . .) not all areas, but only specific vegetation,
(. . .) Well, well!, I’m for that” [local authority, Powiat Miechowski]).
Although improvement of N2000’s public image among local
communities was not an explicit goal of the Małopolska program,
it was expected by its initiators and organisers. The reception of
N2000 was improved among many respondents. Invitees were par-
ticularly satisfied with the fact that it was not as restrictive as
they had initially assumed and that they were regarded as poten-
tial partners in N2000 designation. For all of the respondents, it
was a novelty that the representatives of local communities had
an influence on the final shape of protected areas planned in their
municipalities. “Local authorities were very pleased. It was probably
the first time that I attended a meeting on Natura, where people spoke
to the point: local government representatives brought their argu-
ments that this (. . .) area should not be included for a given reason,
the scientists listened to them and wrote it down. In this respect, it
went well” [local administration, Powiat Nowotarski]. Some of the
borders were corrected due to participants’ needs after shorter or
longer negotiations with experts. Respondents’ satisfaction with
N2000 increased, even if actual changes to the sites were minor. It is
promising that the consultation meetings altered invitees’ percep-
tions of the experts and administration responsible for the N2000
program (“I can’t say anything against experts. On the contrary –
they tried to understand the situation, draw conclusions and propose
something that could possibly satisfy us” [local administration, Powiat
Limanowski]).
In summary, the consultation program was evaluated as being
clearly positive by both the organisers and the invitees. That eval-
uation also applies to those who were not initially convinced that
it was worthwhile. In the opinion of the majority, the main reasons
to continue such meetings were normative, such as the fairness of
engaging people in making decisions that affect them (“Now we
see that more meetings like this are needed, because we [need to] do
things together – of course there will never be unanimity, but in democ-
racy the majority make decisions and it should be respected” [local
authority, Powiat Limanowski]).
Degree of participation and power distribution in the Małopolska
consultation process
Based on the available reports and interviews, it is clear that the
way the meetings were organised, what information was provided
and the degree of participants’ influence on eventual outcomes
 J. Cent et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102
were all decided by the organisers and those who selected the
sites. The least empowered group were citizens who did not attend
the meetings. Local authorities and administrations at least had an
opportunity to express their opinions, while environmental NGOs
influenced the process in a different way, acting mainly at the
national or/and international level. However, it should be stated
that some opportunities were missed. First of all, local authorities
and administration failed to encourage citizens to attend the meet-
ings. Second, in most cases, RDEP did not succeed in establishing
local coordinators for further cooperation with experts. According
to the moderator, this was mainly due to a lack of interest and
engagement from the participants’ side.
The limited distribution of power to the local level was the
result of the absence of decisive actors in the process. RDEP solely
executes the national law and requirements, however, it does
not participate in developing policy programs. It is responsible
for the selection of N2000 sites that would be accepted by the
European Commission, regardless of the way (participatory versus
non-participatory) they were chosen. Indeed, the expectations of
some participants expressed in the interviews were far beyond
RDEP responsibilities. This fact was actually used as an excuse by
RDEP during a presentation of the N2000 rules to local actors [par-
ticipant observation], where the responsibility for establishing the
program and all its obligations were assigned to the EU. The con-
sultation process was presented as RDEP’s best possible attempt to
meet the needs of local communities given the binding regulations
and the limited capacity of regional administration.
Local stakeholders were given the opportunity to make com-
ments and suggest modifications to the proposed sites boundaries,
although the degree to which these were taken into account
depended on a particular expert’s decisions and his/her attitude.
The eventual inclusion of such arguments into the decision-making
process was achieved in only a few cases (“We got in touch with those
people, they came here and we reduced [the area of Natura site]. (. . .)
But one had to commit oneself to this issue” [local authority, Powiat
Limanowski]). The suggestions were not accepted very often, either
due to the timing of the meetings (organised too late) or because
of the prevailing ecological arguments in favour of the originally
proposed boundaries.
In general, it seems that the whole program played a type of
“therapeutic” role, which was the aim intended by the modera-
tor as described during an interview. Before attempting discussion
about the merits, the invitees vented their emotions and expressed
dissatisfaction with N2000. In case of escalated conflicts, this part
of the agenda could last for the whole first meeting. It was only
after hearing the claims and grievances that the organisers moved
on to providing more detailed information on the proposed site
boundaries. Almost half of the local stakeholders stated that, in
their opinion, the consultation did not achieve more than this “ther-
apeutic” role in facilitating their participation in the designation of
N2000 sites. Despite this constraint, the opportunity to be heard
was a sufficient reason to participate in the process. Participants
were also aware of how difficult it might be for the experts to
address all the criticism and people’s claims, which were some-
times expressed in a tempestuous manner (“You could have heard
[during the meetings] different words. Unpleasant words [laughter].
The atmosphere there, I can tell you, it was stormy” [local authority,
Powiat Nowotarski]. “[The experts] used to be afraid a little bit, afraid
of stormy discussion, but I have always reminded our stakeholders to
avoid quarrels and insults” [local authority, Powiat Limanowski]). In
fact, except for the professional moderator, organisers had little or
no experience in public participation, nor were they aware of the
possible intensity of conflicts at the local level.
In general, the program showed that a dialogue between var-
ious parties is possible. Virtually all respondents expressed their
interest in actively participating in the next stage of the N2000
97
implementation, the development of management plans. How-
ever, previous experiences from site selection in 2004–2007
and the limited possibility of influencing decisions made during
the Małopolska program caused local-level representatives to be
pessimistic about the outcomes of their participation in the devel-
opment of management plans.
Discussion
The role of N2000 in the development of multilevel governance
In Poland, participatory processes have recently been applied
more frequently; however, their performance is still low in terms of
engaging key actors and sharing decision-making power with them
(Blicharska et al. 2011; Chmielewski & Krogulec 2008; Grodzińska-
Jurczak 2008; Niedziałkowski et al. 2012). The observed issues have
similarities and differences with other CEE and EU-15 cases of
N2000 implementation and the governance of nature in general.
Lack of experience and good practices in engaging stakeholders is
a common issue in CEE countries (Lawrence 2008; Mishler & Rose
2001), which results in the lower engagement of local communi-
ties and participation opportunities being missed by invitees, as
was the case in the Małopolska consultations. However, existing
traditions of participation in the EU-15 in environmental or other
sectors are not necessarily translated into effective participation in
nature conservation but rather result in increased expectations and
critical evaluations of modest or unsuccessful attempts (Hiedanpää
& Bromley 2011; Rauschmayer et al. 2009).
Problems with the implementation of the Habitats Directive are
partially derived from its contradictory requirements for the delin-
eation of sites on a scientific basis and to simultaneously consider
stakeholders and socio-economic aspects in cases of legitimacy
crisis (Pinton 2008). Expert solutions may maximise environmen-
tal outcomes, but they rarely maximise legitimacy (Evans 2012).
The same story seems to play out all over Europe: the initial site
selection process, based on scientific knowledge, is contested by
local stakeholders and is followed by participatory processes in
order to raise the legitimacy of the program. The N2000 program
was perceived as top-down and imposed “by Brussels”, which was
blamed by local and regional actors (Eben 2007; Leibenath 2008;
Wurzel 2008). However, the EU-15 had the opportunity to with-
draw some of the decisions it made in an authoritative manner,
which eventually developed the network through various levels
of deliberation (or other forms of participation) with stakehol-
ders (Bogaert & Leroy 2008; Cliquet et al. 2010; Pinton 2008). In
the case of the CEE however, the top-down site selection deci-
sions were not undermined by legitimacy deficits. In Poland, the
first list of sites was shortened by the State, possibly because of
anticipated implementation problems. Effective actions by envi-
ronmental NGOs, building on the experience and advice of their
European partners, led to the eventual designation of an extended
list within less than five years (Cent et al. 2013). Similar to the
other CEE countries, NGOs in Poland became important actors in
environmental policymaking (Börzel & Buzogány 2010b).
Another difference between Poland and the EU-15 relates to the
composition of protesting groups. While examples from the EU-15
indicate the important roles of landowners and users (e.g., farm-
ers, foresters) (Alphandéry & Fortier 2001; Hiedanpää 2002), in
Poland, the most visible opponents at the local level are munici-
pality authorities. Underrepresentation of local actors, other than
public authorities, is also characteristic for other CEE countries
(Kluvánková-Oravská et al. 2009). The recognition of stakeholders
did not lead to the sufficient engagement of local actors in all EU-
15 cases. While France seems to be a relatively successful case,
participatory programs organised in Belgium or Germany did not
98 J. Cent et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102
meet the expectations of stakeholders and the public (Bogaert &
Leroy 2008; Leibenath 2008; Rauschmayer et al. 2009). Unsuccess-
ful consultation programs led to the escalation of local conflicts
or to participation fatigue. However, in the Małopolska program,
despite numerous drawbacks, all parties (organisers and partic-
ipants) expressed high levels of interest in joining any activities
related to the management of the sites.
A similar aspect for all EU countries is a focus on the lack
of procedural legitimacy, described in various studies on N2000
implementation (Engelen et al. 2008; Paavola 2004), with little
attention given to the environmental outcomes of the participatory
processes (Beunen 2006; Young et al. 2013), which is also the case
for the Małopolska program. Stakeholders were more disturbed by
the lack of participation opportunities than with the actual out-
comes of the process. Even tiny changes in the borders considerably
improved the perception of N2000.
Levels of participation in the Małopolska public consultation
program
The Małopolska program was mostly a bilateral process involv-
ing, on one side, the public administration and their contractors
(e.g., experts selecting the N2000 sites) with representatives of local
communities on the other side (mainly local authorities and their
employees). Environmental NGO representatives had the oppor-
tunity to influence the process by other means, even before the
face-to-face consultation meetings started (Cent et al. 2013). Inter-
estingly, non-environmental NGOs that would represent other
interests of local societies hardly ever participated in the process.
The meetings were a planner-centred process (Reed 2008) in the
sense of primarily seeking to fulfil the goals of the organisers, not
the participants, and facilitate future management of the sites.
Its normative foundations however, reconstructed from partici-
pants’ statements in our study, indicated people-centred normative
motives for organising the meetings, even if the actual empower-
ment of actors on the local level was neither achieved nor even
expected.
Taking into consideration the growing trust for public admin-
istration in the Małopolska program, Unnerstall’s (2008) informal
administrative approach mode seems to be well suited for the con-
ditions in Małopolska. It is similar to N2000 implementation in
Greece in this respect (Apostolopoulou et al. 2012), exhibiting sim-
ilar deficits and opportunities for further improvements. Finding
a balance between the stability and flexibility of legal solutions
to ensure meaningful public participation still remains an issue
(Ebbesson 2010), and this mode of approach does not exclude either
factor. The formal administrative approach, which was applied
in the early years of N2000 site selection, failed to deliver any
positive results in terms of either informing or convincing local
communities of the legitimacy of the N2000 program in Poland
(Grodzińska-Jurczak et al. 2012). Similar to the EU-15 cases, the
initial failure of the top-down process initiated interest in stake-
holders’ participation. However, unlike in many EU-15 cases, the
top-down decisions remained valid, which negatively influenced
trust and relationships between organisers and participants in the
Małopolska program. This constraint, along with the limited or non-
existent experience of the organisers and their limited power to
make the decisions requested by participants, hindered the devel-
opment of the political approach, which might be identified with
higher levels of Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation.
The distribution of power between the actors was highly asym-
metric, and the Malopolska consultations barely reached tokenism
(Arnstein 1969). The organisers’ intentions were limited to inform-
ing and convincing participants about the program. However, the
actual exchange of opinions in some cases led to participants influ-
encing the final shape of sites. From the perspectives of both
organisers and participants, the process can be characterised as a
consultation level on Arnstein’s ladder, with neither group fully
achieving their goals. Further improvement of participation is
important not only for fulfilling the goals of the particular pro-
gram but also for transforming communities (Fischer et al. 2012;
Lawrence 2006), strengthening the links between various stake-
holders groups and protecting nature. The overall process of public
participation in the designation of N2000 sites in Poland can also be
summarised as a mixture of strictly top-down and emerging delib-
erative decision-making (O’Riordan & Stoll-Kleemann 2002; van
der Windt 2008), indicating an on-going transition to potentially
more participatory management of the sites in the future phases.
The combined use of the proposed frameworks to analyse partic-
ipatory processes was found useful in our study. Arnstein’s (1969)
ladder of participation was applicable in the analysed case, mainly
because it focused on two polarised types of stakeholders: organ-
isers and invitees, particularly local authorities. The inability to
describe relationships between multiple groups of interests is a
recognised limitation of the concept (Maier 2001). Describing the
degrees of participation was helpful in revealing the asymmetries of
power between the two groups of actors, while the identification
of participants’ expectations and agendas helped in understand-
ing their views on the process. These are universal aspects of the
dynamics of participation, and the results from this part of the anal-
ysis confirm the challenges of applying participatory approaches
world-wide (Reed 2008; Wagenet & Pfeffer 2007). Unnerstall’s
(2008) typology allows understanding the institutionalisation of
participation in managing N2000 in Poland and comparing it with
existing alternatives in the implementation of the EU Habitats
Directive in the CEE context, with positive outlooks for the future
in this case.
The approach taken in our study has some limitations. Rely-
ing on qualitative data and a desk study is a suitable approach
for the chosen analytical frameworks, however, it cannot deliver
quantitative evidence. In this case, assessing a success would also
require the use of ecological indicators to evaluate the impact of the
consultations (e.g., by comparing sites designated with or without
consultation processes) on the actual performance of any conserva-
tion measures (e.g., species and habitat conservation statuses). The
analysis only considers the role of the selected stakeholders in the
development of MLG in N2000 management in Poland, i.e., those
who actually participated in the studied consultation program on
a regular basis, namely, local administration, local authorities and
experts. Environmental NGOs, the general public and private land
owners are among the stakeholders not included in our study but
who are especially relevant for institutional changes in the gover-
nance of N2000. In the case of Poland, their roles were discussed
in previous works (Cent et al. 2013; Grodzińska-Jurczak and Cent
2011a; Niedziałkowski et al. 2013). Their absence from the studied
consultation program was recognised by respondents and indi-
cated in the results section.
Conclusions
It has already been acknowledged that the implementation pro-
cesses of EU policies in CEE differ from the previous experiences
with the EU-15 (Tews 2009), which is confirmed by our study.
Unlike many EU-15 countries, where the implementation of N2000
is still perceived as “old-style ruling-down conservation that has
largely been removed” (Hiedanpää & Bromley 2011), in Poland,
the whole process has resulted in the incorporation of participa-
tory approaches in environmental decision making. We believe that
although such a tactic still has limitations and rather “informative
provisions” (Lawrence 2008), wise policymakers will use the ana-
lysed case as a basis for the further development of a meaningful
 J. Cent et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102
participatory approach in the entire country and the broader region
(CEE). Additionally, the different implementation conditions in CEE
should be recognised by EU policymakers.
Our study argues for the importance of public participation in
biodiversity governance in general and presents benefits that were
achieved regardless of the limited success of the analysed consul-
tation program. The rather low expectations of all parties involved
as well as the modest goals of the process resulted in an increase
in trust and improved communication and overall satisfaction with
the Małopolska program, even if the decisions made did not satisfy
all parties and did not fit the normative foundations of the pro-
gram. If not for the few cases in which participants’ opinions were
used to change the borders of sites, according to Arnstein’s cate-
gories, the Małopolska process would fall close to an “empty ritual
of participation”, but this would not be a unique issue consider-
ing the experiences of other CEE and EU-15 countries. If the level
of participation is to be increased in future phases of developing
management plans, site administrators need to be more effective
in engaging local actors and offering them more opportunities to
influence actual decisions.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and
Higher Education project no. N30509432/3185, National Science
Centre project no. NN116542240, Jagiellonian University grant no.
WRBW/DS/INoŚ/760 and by the SCALES project funded by the
European Commission FP 7 grant no. 226 852 (Henle et al. 2010;
www.scales-project.net).
Appendix 1. List of desk study 10 documents and sources
Legal acts
Dz.U.2004.92.880 Ustawa z dnia 16 kwietnia 2004 r. o ochronie
przyrody. [Act on nature protection]
Dz.U.2008.201.1237 Ustawa z dnia 3 października 2008 r. o zmi-
anie ustawy o ochronie przyrody oraz niektórych innych ustaw.
[Act on a change of act of nature protection and some other acts]
Dz.U.2000.109.1157 Ustawa z dnia 9 listopada 2000 r. o dostepie˛
do informacji o środowisku i jego ochronie oraz o ocenach odd-
ziaływania na środowisko. [Act on access to information on
environment and its protection and on environmental impact
assessments]
Opracowanie planu zadań ochronnych dla obszaru Natura 2000
(projekt). Generalna Dyrekcja
Ochrony Środowiska (luty 2010) URL: http://www.kp.org.pl/pdf/
poradniki/wytyczne pzo projekt z 20100205 ver wg siwz rdos
bialystok.pdf [Polish General Directorate of Environmental Pro-
tection’s guidelines for Natura 2000 management plans; accessed
5 April 2012]
˛
Dz.U. 2010 nr 34 poz. 186 Rozporzadzenie Ministra Środowiska
˛
z dnia 17 lutego 2010 r. w sprawie sporzadzania projektu planu
zadań ochronnych dla obszaru Natura 2000 [Polish Ministry of
Environment’s decree on preperation of Natura 2000 management
plan]
˛
Dz.U. 2010 nr 64 poz. 401 Rozporzadzenie Ministra Środowiska
z dnia 30 marca 2010 r. w sprawie sporzadzania ˛ projektu
planu ochrony dla obszaru Natura 2000 [Polish Ministry of Envi-
ronment’s decree on preperation of Natura 2000 management
strategy]
99
Reports and other documents received from Institute of Nature
Protection, Polish Academy of Sciences, and Regional Directorate
of Environmental Protection
Report from Małopolska consultation program 2008
Report from Małopolska consultation program 2009
150 official opinions of public authorities considering borders
of Natura 2000 sites in alpine region (including majority of
Małopolska), submitted to the Ministry of Environment (out of
640 opinions submitted from the whole Poland)
Information materials, other documents and literature in Polish
Antoniewicz, P. (2006) Partnerstwo człowieka i przyrody.
˛
Dolnoślaska Fundacja Ekorozwoju. URL: http://www.iee.org.pl/
rozwoj/docs/PARTNERSTWO CZLOWIEKA I PRZ.pdf [accessed 2
September 2008].
Bernacka, A., Jermaczek, A., Kierus, M. & Ruszlewicz, A. (2004)
Uspołecznione planowanie ochrony przyrody na obszarach sieci
NATURA 2000. Świebodzin: Klub Przyrodników. URL: http://www.
kp.org.pl/content/view/470/577/lang,polish/ [accessed 2 June
2012]
Bołtromiuk, A. & Kłodziński, M., Eds. (2011) Natura 2000 jako czyn-
nik zrównoważonego rozwoju obszarów wiejskich regionu Zielonych
Płuc Polski. Warszawa: IWiRW PAN.
Bołtromiuk, A. & Zagórski, M. (2011) Natura 2000 – 47 dobro
publiczne problem prywatny. Raport z badań. Europejski Fun-
dusz Rozwoju Wsi Polskiej http://www.efrwp.pl/theme/site/
userfiles/files/Raport Natura2000.pdf [accessed 2 June 2012]
Cent, J., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. & Nowak, N. (2010) Ocena efek-
tów małopolskiego programu konsultacji społecznych wokół
obszarów Natura 2000. Chrońmy Przyrod˛e Ojczysta˛ 66(4): 251–260.
[English title: Public consultations program on Natura 2000 sites
in Malopolska – effects’ evaluation]
Chmielewski, T.J., Gromadzki, M., Jankowski, W. & Kistowski, M.
(2006) Rola sieci obszarów Natura 2000 w kształtowaniu nowego
paradygmatu ochrony przyrody w Polsce. In: Chmielewski, T. ed.
˛
Zarzadzanie zasobami przyrody na obszarach Natura 2000 w Polsce.
Lublin: Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej.
˛
Chmielewski, T.J., Ed. (2006) Zarzadzanie zasobami przyrody na
obszarach Natura 2000 w Polsce. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Akademii
Rolniczej w Lublinie. de Piérola, S.C.F., Carbonell, X., Garcia,
J.G.L., Hernández, F.H. & Zamanillo, M.S. (2009) Natura 2000 i
˛
społeczeństwo. Instrumenty komunikacji społecznej w zarzadzaniu
siecia˛ Natura 2000. Warszawa: EDIT.
Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. & Tarabuła-Fiertak M., eds. (2010) Jak
projektować i prowadzić działania informacyjno-konsultacyjne na
obszarach Natura 2000? Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu
Jagiellońskiego.
Grzegorczyk, M. (2007) Integralna ochrona przyrody. Kraków:
Instytut Ochrony Przyrody PAN
Iddle, E. & Bines T. (2004) Planowanie Ochrony Obszarów Cen-
nych Przyrodniczo. Przewodnik dla praktyków i ich szefów.
Świebodzin: Wydawnictwo Klubu Przyrodników. URL: http://
www.kp.org.pl/pdf/poradniki/eddieiddle timbines.pdf [Manage-
ment Planninig for Protected Areas: A guide for practitioners &
their bosses; accessed 2 June 2012]
IRWiR PAN (2011) Summary of a conference “Wpływ obszarów
Natura 2000 na rozwój gmin wiejskich – impuls czy hamulec”,
Warszawa, April 2011. URL: http://www.irwirpan.waw.pl/index.
php?option=com content&view=article&id=337%3Awnioski-
z73dyskusji&catid=49&Itemid=52&lang=pl [accessed 2 June
2012]
100 J. Cent et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature (2005) Imple-
mentation of Natura 2000 in New EU Member States of Central
Europe. Assessment Report. Warszawa: IUCN, pp. 39–40, 50–52.
Jendrośka, J. & Bar, M. (2008) Wspólnotowe prawo ochrony
środowiska i jego implementacja w Polsce trzy lata po akcesji.
Wrocław: Centrum Prawa Ekologicznego.
Jermaczek, A. & Pawlaczyk P. (2004) Natura 2000 – narz˛edzie
planowania ochrony. WWF. URL: http://www.kp.org.pl/pdf/
poradniki/natura 2000 narzedzie.pdf [accessed 2 June 2012]
Jermaczek, A. & Pawlaczyk, P. (2004) Natura 2000 u progu –
ochrona elementów europejskiego dziedzictwa przyrodniczego w
Polsce. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo WWF. [Natura 2000 – protection
of elements of European environmental haritage in Poland]
Klub Przyrodników (2012) Natura 2000 i inne wymagania europe-
jskiej ochrony przyrody – niezb˛ednik urz˛ednika. Świebodzin:
Wydawnictwo Klubu Przyrodników.
Klub Przyrodników (2012) Natura 2000 i inne wymagania europe-
jskiej ochrony przyrody – niezb˛ednik przyrodnika. Świebodzin:
Wydawnictwo Klubu Przyrodników.
Klub Przyrodników (2012) Natura 2000 i inne wymagania 87
europejskiej ochrony przyrody – niezb˛ednik leśnika. Świebodzin:
Wydawnictwo Klubu Przyrodników.
˛
Kot, J. & Kucharczyk, M. 2006. Pilotażowe programy zarzadzania
obszarami NATURA 2000 “Małopolski przełom Wisły”, “Przełom
Wisły w Małopolsce” i “Dolina Zwolenki”. Infrastruktura i Ekologia
Terenów Wiejskich 4(3)
Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M. & Tworek, S. (2003) Ekologiczna sieć
ekologiczna Natura 2000 – Problem czy szansa? Kraków: Instytut
Ochrony Przyrody PAN.
Makomaska-Juchiewicz, M. (2009) Current state of implementa-
tion of the Natura 2000 network in Poland. Chrońmy Przyrod˛e
Ojczysta˛ 65: 11–28. [in Polish]
Małopolski Urzad˛ Wojewódzki 2008. Bez emocji o Naturze 2000 –
informacja prasowa [WWW document]. URL: http://www.muw.pl/
PressArticlePage.aspx?id=5033 [Accessed: 20 April 2010].
Managing Natura 2000. The provisions of Article 6 of the ‘Habi-
tats’ Directive 92/43/CEE. Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities. © European Communities, 2000
˛
Matczak P. & Koziarek M. (2011) Współpraca miedzysektorowa
przy tworzeniu polityk publicznych 101 dotyczacych ˛ spraw
społecznych i ochrony środowiska. Instytut Spraw Pub-
licznych. URL: 102 http://wszechnica.org.pl/model wspolpracy/
publikacje i dokumenty/ISP%20wsp%C3%B3%C5%82p103raca
%20polityki%20raport%20ko%C5%84cowy%20final.pdf [accessed
20 June 2012]
Ministerstwo Rozwoju Regionalnego: Inwestycje infrastruktu-
˛
ralne. Komunikacja społeczna i rozwiazywanie konfliktów.
Nagy, T., Bowman, M., Dusik, J., Jendrośka, J., Stec, S., Zwiep van
der, K. & Zlinsky, J. (1994) Manual on Public Participation in Envi-
ronmental Decisionmaking: Current Practice and Future Possibilities
in Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: Regional Environmental
Center for Central and Eastern 109 Europe [WWW document]. URL:
http://archive.rec.org/REC/Publications/PPManual/Default.html
[accessed 20 April 2011]
Perzanowska, J. & Grzegorczyk M. (2009) Obszary Natura 2000 w
Małopolsce. Kraków: Instytut Ochrony Przyrody PAN.
Wertz J. 2007 Recent changes in nature conservation system in
Poland. Chrońmy Przyrod˛e Ojczysta˛ 65(1): 5–10 [in Polish].
WWF Polska (2007) Jakość konsultacji społecznych w Polsce. Kra-
jowa praktyka a uwarunkowania prawne. URL: http://awsassets.
wwfpl.panda.org/downloads/jakosc konsultacji.pdf [accessed 20
June 2012]
WWF Polska (2008) Decyzje dotyczace ˛ środowiska – Warunki
dobrych konsultacji społecznych. URL: http://awsassets.
wwfpl.panda.org/downloads/dobre konsultacje spoleczne.pdf
[accessed 20 June 2012]
WWW pages
http://www.gdos.gov.pl/ [official page of General Directorate of
Environmental Protection, accessed 1 June 2011]
http://krakow.rdos.gov.pl [official page of Regional Directorate
125 of Environmental Protection in Kraków, accessed 1 June 2011]
http://www.kp.org.pl/ [Klub Przyrodników – Naturalists’ Club –
NGO engaged in designation of N2000 in Poland, accessed 1 June
2011]
http://www.wwfpl.panda.org [World Wide Fund Poland – NGO
engaged in designation of N2000 in Poland, accessed 1 June 2011]
http://www.otop.org.pl/ [Ogólnopolskie Towarzystwo Ochrony
Ptaków – Polish Birdlife Partner – NGO engaged in designation
of N2000 in Poland, accessed 1 June 2011]
http://www.iop.krakow.pl/natura2000/ [Institute of Nature Pro-
tection, Polish Academy of Sciences, accessed 1 June 2011]
http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/ [official information and resources
on N2000 in Poland, accessed 1 June 2011]
http://www.obszary.natura2000.pl/ [list of N2000 sites in Poland,
accessed 1 June 2011]
http://www.poczujnature.pl/ [N2000 promotional campaign,
accessed 1 June 2011]
http://bialowieza.mos.gov.pl/ [information on Białowieża Natioal
Park enlargement program; Accessed 20 April 2011, accessed 1
June 2011].
http://natura2000.org.pl/ [N2000 educational page of Institute for
Sustainable Development, accessed 1 June 2011]
http://straznicy.natura2000.pl [informational portal supporting
securing biodivesity in N2000 sites]
Appendix 2. Interview guide
Introduction
Prior to the interview its’ general rules (request for elaborated
and honest opinions, confidentiality agreements, permission to
record the interview) and introduction to the study topics were
briefly presented to each respondent.
Interviews were conducted in Poland in two following years
of 2008 and 2009 and considered the Natura 2000 (N2000) pro-
gram, particularly: opinions on Małopolska consultations; role of
various actors in consultation process in Małopolska; and, respon-
dents’ opinions on N2000’s role for a general nature conservation
in Poland. On average, interviews lasted between 60 and 120 min.
The interview guide consisted of more general topics and specific
questions that were to be asked in each interview, however the way
how these were actually formulated and the order of the questions
varied between the interviews, depending on the flow of conver-
sation.
The list of topics and questions
1. Respondent’s general opinion on N2000
• Advantages and disadvantages of the N2000 program
• Advantages and disadvantages of its’ implementation in
Poland
• Sources of knowledge about N2000
2. Consultation program
Attendance
• How many meetings did you participate?
• Why did you participate in consultation meetings?
• What were your expectation towards the meeting(s)?
Course of the meeting
• What was the atmosphere of the meeting like?
• Were, in your opinion, the meetings useful? If so, how and for
whom? Was the meeting particularly useful for you?
 J. Cent et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102
• Did all relevant stakeholders participate in the meeting? Who
was not invited/present and, in your opinion, should have
been?
• What issues were the most problematic/conflicting?
Results of the meeting
• What were the eventual results of the meetings?
• How would you assess these results?
Information
• How would you assess the information provided during the
meeting? (in particular: was it important, detailed, adequate,
adapted to local circumstances, comprehensible, etc.)
• Did you learn anything new? Did you learn anything use-
ful/important?
• Did participants get the answers for all of their questions?
Change in attitudes
• In what way, if so, did the meeting effect your attitude toward
N2000?
• Did it have any impact on concerns diminution, your percep-
tion of the program value/importance, your interest in the
program?
New actions and meetings
• Have any new actions concerning N2000 been implemented
as a result of the meeting?
• Have any new actions been planned afterwards? (e.g., by
respondent’s institution)
• Is there a need to organise further meetings on Natura 2000? If
so, what should be the focus of those meetings and for whom
it should be organised?
• Would you participate in any new meetings on N2000?
3. Participation in management – informal cooperation with
scientists/biologists
After some of the N2000 consultation meetings or in between
times, the site designation process was going on, informal talks
and meetings of biologists with local landowners or other stake-
holders took place. Have you been a part of that?
if yes, respondent was asked the following questions:
• What was the aim of these informal meetings and talks?
• What was your role in those informal meetings?
• What were the reasons for which you participated?
• What was the outcomes? Are you satisfied or not with these
outcomes?
• How would you assess the person leading the informal meet-
ings or contacting you? (particularly in terms of: openness for
dialogue, substantive basis, communication skills)
• Who else participated in the informal works?
• Who should have participated but hadn’t been invited?
4. Other topics covered during interviews
Local community’s actions considering designation of N2000.
Leader and outcome. A need for participation of local residents
and landowners in N2000 consultation meetings.
Next steps in N2000 designation:
• What are the most urgent needs considering N2000 in your
municipality? What problems need to be solved?
• What kind of profits (not only economic) can N2000 provide
for local community? What are the burdens?
• How should development of N2000 management plans be con-
ducted in the future? Would you like to participate in it and if
so, how?
Request to add if there is anything important not covered in
the interview and final thanks to the respondents.
References
A’gh, A. (2001). Public sector reforms, institutional design and strategy for good
governance in East Central Europe. Studies in East European Thought, 53, 233–255.
101
Alphandéry, P., & Fortier, A. (2001). Can territorial policy be based on science alone:
The system for creating the Natura 2000 network in France. Sociologia Ruralis,
41, 311–328.
Apostolopoulou, E., & Pantis, J. D. (2011). Development plans versus conservation:
Explanation of emergent conflicts and state political handling. Environment and
Planning A, 42(4), 982–1000.
Apostolopoulou, E., Drakou, E., Santoro, F., & Pantis, J. D. (2012). Investigating the
barriers to adopting a human-in-nature view in Greek biodiversity conservation.
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 19, 515–525.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Insti-
tute of Planners, 35, 216–224.
Banas, P. A. (2010). International ideal and local practice – Access to environmental
information and local government in Poland. Environmental Policy and Gover-
nance, 20, 44–56.
Bell, S., Reinert, H., Cent, J., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Kobierska, H., Podjed, D., et al.
(2011). Volunteers on the political anvil: Citizenship and volunteer biodiver-
sity monitoring in three postcommunist countries. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 29, 170–185.
Beunen, R. (2006). European nature conservation legislation and spatial planning:
For better or for worse? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
49(4), 605–619.
Beunen, R., & de Vries, J. R. (2011). The governance of Natura 2000 sites: The impor-
tance of initial choices in the organisation of planning processes. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 54, 1041–1059.
Blicharska, M., Angelstam, P., Antonson, H., Elbakidze, M., & Axelsson, R. (2011). Road,
forestry and regional planners’ work for biodiversity conservation and public
participation: A case study in Poland’s hotspot regions. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 54(10), 1373–1395.
Bogaert, D., & Leroy, P. (2008). Endangered legitimacy. In J. Keulartz, & G. Leis-
tra (Eds.), Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy (pp. 185–204).
Netherlands: Springer.
Börzel, T., & Buzogány, A. (2010a). Environmental organizations and the Europeani-
sation of public policy in Central and Eastern Europe: The case of biodiversity
governance. Environmental Politics, 19, 708–735.
Börzel, T., & Buzogány, A. (2010b). Governing EU accession in transition countries:
The role of non-state actors. Acta Politica, 45(1–2), 158–182.
Bruszt, L. (2008). Multi-level governance—The eastern versions: Emerging patterns
of regional developmental governance in the new member states. Regional &
Federal Studies, 18(5), 607–627.
Cent, J., Mertens, C., & Niedzialkowski, K. (2013). Roles and impacts of non-
governmental organizations in Natura 2000 implementation in Hungary and
Poland. Environmental Conservation, 40(2), 119–128.
Chmielewski, T. J., & Krogulec, J. (2008). Creation of a bottom-up nature conservation
policy in Poland: The case of the West Polesie Biosphere Reserve. In J. Keulartz, &
G. Leistra (Eds.), Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy (pp. 137–148).
Netherlands: Springer.
Cliquet, A., Kervarec, F., Bogaert, D., Maes, F., & Queffelec, B. (2010). Legiti-
macy issues in public participation in coastal decision making processes:
Case studies from Belgium and France. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53,
760–768.
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons.
Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912.
Ebbesson, J. (2010). The rule of law in governance of complex socio-ecological
changes. Global Environmental Change, 20, 414–422.
Eben, M. (2007). Public participation during site selections for Natura 2000 in
Germany: The Bavarian case. In S. Stoll-Kleemann, & M. Welp (Eds.), Stakeholder
dialogues in natural resources management – Theory and practice (pp. 261–276).
Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Engelen, E., Keulartz, J., & Leistra, G. (2008). European nature conservation policy
making. In J. Keulartz, & G. Leistra (Eds.), Legitimacy in European nature conser-
vation policy (pp. 3–24). Netherlands: Springer.
Evans, J. P. (2012). Environmental governance. London and New York: Routledge.
Fischer, J., Hartel, T., & Kuemmerle, T. (2012). Conservation policy in traditional
farming landscapes. Conservation Letters, 5(3), 167–175.
Grodzińska-Jurczak, M. (2008). Rethinking of nature conservation policy in Poland:
The need of human dimensions approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 13,
380–381.
Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., Boćkowski, M., Cent, J., & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A. (2012).
Socio-economic problems during Natura 2000 site selection process. TEKA
Komisji Ochrony i Kształtowania Środowiska Przyrodniczego Oddziału PAN w
Lublinie, 9, 64–69 (in Polish)
Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., & Cent, J. (2011a). Enlargement of nature conservation areas
– Problems with Natura 2000 implementation in Poland? Environmental Man-
agement, 47, 11–27.
Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., & Cent, J. (2011b). Can public participation increase nature
conservation effectiveness? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science
Research, 24(3), 307–314.
Haruţa, C., & Radu, B. (2010). Citizen participation in the decision making process at
local and county levels in the Romanian public institutions. Transylvanian Review
of Administrative Sciences, 31(E), 76L 92.
Henle, K., Kunin, W., Schweiger, O., Schmeller, D. S., Grobelnik, V., Matsinos, Y., et al.
(2010). Securing the conservation of biodiversity across administrative levels
and spatial, temporal, and ecological scales. GAIA, 19, 187–193.
Hiedanpää, J. (2002). European-wide conservation versus local well-being: The
reception of the Natura 2000 Reserve Network in Kavia, SW-Finland. Landscape
and Urban Planning, 61, 113–123.
102 J. Cent et al. / Journal for Nature Conservation 22 (2014) 93–102
Hiedanpää, J., & Bromley, D. W. (2011). The harmonization game: Reasons and
rules in European biodiversity policy. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21,
99–111.
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth
the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.
Jordan, A. (2008). The governance of sustainable development: Taking stock and
looking forwards. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 26, 17–33.
Keulartz, J. (2009). European nature conservation and restoration policy – Problems
and perspectives. Restoration Ecology, 17, 446–450.
Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Chobotová, V., & Banaszak, I. (2009). From government to
governance for biodiversity: The perspective of Central and Eastern European
transition countries. Environmental Planning and Governance, 19, 186–196.
Lawrence, A. (2006). ‘No personal motive?’ Volunteers, biodiversity, and the false
dichotomies of participation. Ethics, Place and Environment, 9, 279–298.
Lawrence, A. (2008). Experiences with participatory conservation in post-socialist
Europe. International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 4, 179–186.
Leibenath, M. (2008). Legitimacy of biodiversity policies in a multi-level setting. In
J. Keulartz, & G. Leistra (Eds.), Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy.
Case studies in multilevel governance (pp. 233–250). Netherlands: Springer.
Maier, K. (2001). Citizen participation in planning: Climbing a ladder? European
Planning Studies, 9(6), 707–719.
Manfredo, M. J., & Dayer, A. A. (2004). Concepts for exploring the social aspects of
human–wildlife conflict in a global context. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 9,
317–328.
May, J. (2006). Ladders, stars and triangles. Old and new theory for the practice of
public participation. International Journal of Market Research, 48(3), 305–319.
McCauley, D. (2008). Sustainable development and the ‘governance challenge’: The
French experience with Natura 2000. European Environment, 18, 152–167.
Mishler, W., & Rose, R. (2001). What are the origins of political trust? Testing institu-
tional and cultural theories in post-communistic societies. Comparative Political
Studies, 34, 30–62.
Newig, J., & Fritsch, O. (2009). Environmental governance: Participatory, multi-level
– and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 197–214.
˛
Niedziałkowski, K., Paavola, J., & Jedrzejewska, B. (2012). Participation and protected
areas governance: The impact of changing influence of local authorities on the
conservation of the Bialowieza Primeval Forest, Poland. Ecology and Society, 17,
2.
˛
Niedziałkowski, K., Paavola, J., & Jedrzejewska, B. (2013). Governance of biodiver-
sity in Poland before and after the accession to the EU: The tale of two roads.
Environmental Conservation, 40(2), 108–118.
O’Riordan, T., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2002). Deliberative democracy and participatory
biodiversity. In T. O’Riordan, & S. Stoll-Kleemann (Eds.), Biodiversity, sustaina-
bility and human communities. Protecting beyond the protected (pp. 87–114).
United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
O’Riordan, T., Fairbrass, J., Welp, M., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2002). The politics of
biodiversity in Europe. In T. O’Riordan, & S. Stoll-Kleemann (Eds.), Biodiver-
sity, sustainability and human communities. Protecting beyond the protected (pp.
115–141). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Paavola, J. (2004). Protected areas governance and justice: Theory and the European
Union’s habitats directive. Environmental Sciences, 1, 59–77.
Paavola, J. (2009). Institutions and environmental governance: A reconceptualiza-
tion. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 93–103.
Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., & Kluvánková-Oravská, T. (2009). Interplay of actors, scales,
frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy
and Governance, 19, 148–158.
Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, A., Cent, J., Grodzińska-Jurczak, M., & Szymańska, M. (2012).
Factors influencing perceptron of protected areas – The case of Natura 2000 in
Polish Carpathian communities. Journal for Nature Conservation, 20, 284–292.
Pinton, F. (2008). Between European injunction and local consultation: Analyzing the
territorialization process for a public nature conservation initiative in France. In
J. Keulartz, & G. Leistra (Eds.), Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy.
Case studies in multilevel governance (pp. 209–226). Netherlands: Springer.
Primmer, E., & Kyllönen, S. (2006). Goals for public participation implied by sustain-
able development, and the preparatory process of the Finnish National Forest
Programme. Forest Policy and Economics, 8, 838–853.
Rauschmayer, F., van den Hove, S., & Koetz, T. (2009). Participation in EU biodiversity
governance: How far beyond rhetoric? Environment and Planning C: Government
and Policy, 27(1), 42–58.
Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management. Bio-
logical Conservation, 141, 2417–2431.
Rodela, R., & Udovč, A. (2008). Participation in nature protection: Does it benefit
the local community? A Triglav National Park case study. International Journal
of Biodiversity Science and Management, 4, 209–218.
Sasse, G., Hughes, J., & Gordon, C. (2006). Sub-national governance in Central and
Eastern Europe: Between transition and Europeanization. In W. Sadurski (Ed.),
Spreading democracy and the rule of law? (pp. 121–147). Netherlands: Springer.
Scrieciu, S. Ş., & Stringer, L. C. (2008). The transformation of post-communist
societies in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union: An eco-
nomic and ecological sustainability perspective. European Environment, 18(3),
168–185.
Sikor, T. (2003). The commons in transition: Agrarian and environmental change in
Central and Eastern Europe. Environmental Management, 34, 270–280.
Suškevičs, M., & Külvik, M. (2011). The role of information, knowledge, and accep-
tance during landowner participation in the Natura 2000 designations: The cases
of Otepää and Kõnnumaa, Estonia. In M. Jones, & M. Stenseke (Eds.), The European
landscape convention (pp. 275–295). Springer.
Svajda, J. (2008). Participatory conservation in a post-communist context: The Tatra
National Park and Biosphere Reserve, Slovakia. International Journal of Biodiver-
sity Science and Management, 4, 200–208.
Szabo, E. A., Lawrence, A., Iusan, C., & Canney, S. (2008). Participatory protected area
management – A case study from Rodna Mountains National Park, Romania.
International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management, 4, 187–199.
Tews, K. (2009). From law-taking to policy-making. The environmental dimension
of the EU accession process – Challenges, risks and chances for the SEE countries.
Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 130–139.
Tickle, A., & Clark, R. (2000). Nature and landscape conservation in transition in
Central and South-Eastern Europe. European Environment, 10, 211–219.
Unnerstall, H. (2006). Sustainable development as a criterion for the interpretation
of article 6 of the habitats directive. European Environment, 16, 73–88.
Unnerstall, H. (2008). Public participation in the establishment and management
of the Natura 2000 Network. Legal framework and administrative practices in
selected member states. Journal for European Environmental and Planning Law,
5(1), 35–68.
van der Windt, H. (2008). Nature conservation in Poland and the Netherlands. In
J. Keulartz, & G. Leistra (Eds.), Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy
(pp. 149–158). Netherlands: Springer.
Wagenet, L., & Pfeffer, M. (2007). Organizing citizen engagement for democratic
environmental planning. Society and Natural Resources, 20, 801–813.
Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., & Renn, O. (2011). Rationales for public par-
ticipation in environmental policy and governance: Practitioners’ perspectives.
Environment and Planning A, 43, 2688–2704.
Wurzel, R. W. (2008). European Union environmental policy and Natura 2000. In
J. Keulartz, & G. Leistra (Eds.), Legitimacy in European nature conservation policy
(pp. 259–282). Netherlands: Springer.
Young, J., Watt, A., Nowicki, P., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Henle, K., et al. (2005). Towards
sustainable land use: Identifying and managing the conflicts between human
activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation,
14, 1641–2166.
Young, J., Richards, C., Fischer, A., Halada, L., Kull, T., Kuzniar, A., et al. (2007). Con-
flicts between biodiversity conservation and human activity in the Central and
Eastern European countries. Ambio, 36(7), 545–550.
Young, J., Jordan, A., Searle, K. R., Butler, A., Chapman, D. S., Simmons, P., et al.
(2013). Does stakeholder involvement really benefit biodiversity conservation?
Biological Conservation, 158, 359–370.